***The Quote-tastic thread***

[Dinho lad]

[Guest Knightrider]

Cany drawing of a pyramid fellas.

[Cajun]

:jesus: yes he is crying!

[Syrette]

That quote pyramid is mesmerizing.

[Munkey]

it gave me a headache

[Syrette]

it gave me a headache

 

The trick is to not concentrate on the words at all.

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

[Syrette]

Has anyone tried flicking their scroll wheel over that quote above me?

 

It's beautiful.

[Guest thompers]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

[Howaythelads]

Obviously appointing any manager comes with its risks but I think with intelligent reasoning you can nail yourself a good bet if you jump outside of the box for a moment. For me its all down to personal skills and not CVs or experience because in Souness and Dalglish we'ved had the CVs and they didn't work out yet in KK we didn't and he most certainly did. Of course there are other examples such as SBR whose CV was second to none and he was a huge success here where as Gullit lacked experience just like KK but was unable to bring success.

 

But looking at every manager we have appointed, you can see why SBR and KK succeeded and why the others didn't - their personal skills.

 

SBR and KK were always going to succeed here because they had the charisma, the motivational skills, the man management skills, the drive, the desire, the passion, the character to handle the expectations and demands of a large one city club. The others lacked such personal skills.

 

Dalglish, how motivated was he by the time he become our manager? Also he was a cheque book manager at Blackburn more than anything else while at Liverpool that club ran itself due to the unique culture at the club. He was dour, uninspiring and old fashioned.

 

Gullit lacked man management skills and couldn't communicate his message to the team, the media and indeed the fans - things SBR and KK were masters at.

 

Souness lacked the man management skills, the motivational skills, the charisma - he too was a chequebook manager and like Dalglish, a defeatist. Remember the FA Cup final and attack attack?

 

Look for good personal skills in a manager and not what's on his CV or what experience he has had or not. Of course those things help but they don't paint the full picture. I'd rather have a manager wet behind the ears and hungry for success because he has yet to win anything, one with top personal skills, over a manager with bags of experience and success but lacking in the personal skills department every damn single time.

 

Look for those things in a manager and you limit the chances of failure. That's what we need to do when looking at new managers. Fuck big names or massively experienced managers. Give me someone with a spark, something about them ala KK. And if you can get a manager with all the personal skills, CV and experience in the world (SBR) then great but those are rare. We were lucky he fell into our lap.

 

Wenger wasn't a successful manager with bags of experience - he had all the personal skills too. Mourinho has come from a classroom literally to become one of the best in the game - again personal skills. KK came from 7 years on a golf course in Spain. Sam Allardyce hasn't won a thing and has no experience of European football or spending money in the transfer market, he's just a baby compared to some managers, but look at the job he's done at Bolton.

 

Does Roeder have top personal skills? The jury is very much still out. I think he's a good motivator and communicates a message well enough, but he lacks the charisma and man management skills or that spark others react to. He'll do a job based on these things, a not too shabby but not great either type job, in between a Gullit and a SBR.

 

Managers (outside the top 4) I think have very good personal skills: Big Sam, Pardew, Boothroyd, Hughes -  the rest are samey samey and neither here nor there, a bit like Roeder. However only Big Sam stands head and shoulders above Roeder outside the top 4, with O'Neill at a push.

 

We make it hard for ourselves because we don't quite know what we want. The board see big names, CVs and opportunity (the cheap option of Roeder for EG) when they should really be looking at personal skills if they can't get the full finished article, like we did with KK who was tailor made for the club. Was Dalglish, Gullit and Souness? Is Roeder?

 

Hindesight is great but it doesn't take a genius to wonder whether it would be logical to put a negative dour manager in charge of the most attacking team in Europe, an inexperienced well known enigmatic and aloof Guillit in charge of a a very traditional British dressing room, or an explosive, poor man manager (Souness) in charge of a highly strung dressing room with big egoes.

 

SBR was a godsend. The rest all failures. When 3 out of 4 appointments prove fatal regardless of deciding factors, there's a rabbit off and alarm bells should be ringing.

 

The club have fucked up two massive apportunites now and you don't get many of those in life, much less in football. That's bad management in any walk of life and not acceptable for a club with aspirations of winning top honours and meeting the expectations of a whole city who should be getting better value for their money.

 

The buck stops at the top.

 

That's a good post.

[NE5]

Cany drawing of a pyramid fellas.

 

are you going to put this one in the Hall of Fame  :winking:

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

[Syrette]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

[Guest thompers]

All this time arguing with him, and I think his last post lost it for himself.

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness  :winking:

[Guest thompers]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness  :winking:

 

Who would appoint somebody that a member of the public could do a better job than?

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness  :winking:

 

Who would appoint somebody that a member of the public could do a better job than?

 

Liverpool ?

 

 

[Guest thompers]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness  :winking:

 

Who would appoint somebody that a member of the public could do a better job than?

 

Liverpool ?

 

 

 

Indeed. Now look where they are. Maybe we will win the CL in a few years then too. After appointing him, did they also appoint a manager plagued with relegation history? Or is that just NUFC?

[GeordieDazzler]

Looks like Montella's on his way to Fulham...

 

Vincenzo Montella’s era at Roma is over after he left the training ground today to complete his loan to Fulham.

 

The striker, nicknamed ‘Aeroplanino’ for his flying celebratory gesture, did not take part in today’s session at Trigoria and the fact was not mentioned on the club website, indicating he is already considered an ex-Giallorossi player.

 

 

Released for the January transfer window after discovering he did not play a part in Coach Luciano Spalletti’s plans, he leaves after seven years at the Stadio Olimpico.

 

 

Although it is not yet official, even teammate Philippe Mexes admitted the switch to Fulham was a certainty.

 

 

“I hope he will score many goals in England and also that he one day comes back to Roma,” said the defender.

 

 

It could well be a temporary transfer, as Montella’s contract with the Giallorossi lasts until June 2010. He was, along with Francesco Totti, the only man remaining from the 2001 Scudetto winning team.

 

 

A group of fans waited outside the gates with a large banner that read: ‘We are with you, nine metres above the sky.’

 

 

The former Empoli and Sampdoria hitman scored 102 goals for Roma – 83 in Serie A, eight for the Coppa Italia, another eight in the UEFA Cup, two Champions League and one Italian Super Cup strike.

 

 

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness :winking:

 

Who would appoint somebody that a member of the public could do a better job than?

 

Liverpool ?

 

 

 

Indeed. Now look where they are. Maybe we will win the CL in a few years then too. After appointing him, did they also appoint a manager plagued with relegation history? Or is that just NUFC?

 

Fuckin whay aye man whay aye aye whay aye aye aye aye aye ayyyye SHEPAD IS SHITE LYK MON

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

how many can you name who have qualified for europe more than us then ?

 

 

 

How many can you name with higher expectations (which relate to money spent)

 

I can name you a canny few clubs who were above us and spending more money for decades before the halls and Shepherd ?

 

Why do you think that has changed ?

 

 

 

And why do you think that those clubs are no longer above us? Is it because competent people were in charge and those clubs were ran properly but still managed to fall? Or do you think that something went wrong at those clubs somewhere along the line, was left unaddressed and the respective club's slide continued?

 

 

primarily it is because we are run massively better now

 

 

 

Indeed. And as we surpassed them, expectations went up. And as we spent hundreds of millions in a decade, expectations went up further, yet weren't met.

 

Do you think it is acceptable to spend £100m-200m in just over a decade and not win anything? Would Roman Abramovich spend that much and consider being the 5th best club at qualifying for euope as success? If not, then why should other big spending clubs have higher expectations than you do for Newcastle?

 

Do you think it's acceptable that this massively underachieving big spending club chairman should pay himself higher wages than the ones that win things for their respective clubs?

 

that is  precisely the point. The current board have raised expectations massively but you have to realistic and accept there are only 2 cups and nobody has a divine right to them. Chelsea and manure are also now in a league of their own financially.

 

 

 

If nobody has a devine right to win them, why is it usually the clubs that spend the most that do win them?

 

And to elaborate on that point, as one of the clubs that spend the most, despite not having a devine right to win one, why haven't we been able to win ONE SINGLE cup, yet the other big spending clubs over the past decade have won numerous cups?

 

Well, you could try asking the managers why they fielded weakened teams in the league Cup ? Or the players why they bottled 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big occasion games Unfortunately though the board didn't play on those days, they had done their job by giving the managers the finance to build good enough teams to get there, good enough to play in the Champions League, unless you think Freddie gave a shite team talk or picked the wrong tactics ?

 

 

 

But it's his job to appoint a man that will use the right tactics. Can you not see this?

 

and its the job of our opponents to do precisely the same thing ?

 

Can you not see this ?

 

Go back to your criteria, what criteria would you apply to pick this man, someone who had got tactics right on a previous occasion, or not ?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and MANY opposing chairmen have done the same thing, SUCCESSFULLY. Not all have appointed managers that have won things. But this comes down to expectations. Look at Bolton, they have appointed a manager that has taken the club to an over-achieving position.

 

So therefore, if even the low-resourced Bolton chairman can appoint a manager to over-achieve, surely the highest paid chairman in english football should be able to appoint one that can reach expectations on some level?

 

no, not many. Just a few. How do you know he is the highest paid chairman and what difference does that make to his footballing judgement ? I said this to you earlier, I would do it but I didn't and don't have the money to buy the club. Shame.

 

Allardyce is a lucky appointment by Bolton anyway. He only got the job because he was a Bolton player and has his roots in the area.

 

 

 

Well surely high wages are usually a reward for competence. Or is it, in this case, a way of taking money from the club and a sign of greed?

 

Seeing as you think it's not a skilled job and anyone with money can do it, why don't you become a director of football, NE5? Run a club for somebody with the money. Tell me how many millionaires that you manage to convince that their money and club is safe in your unqualified unskilled hands.

 

I would be DOF of football for Newcastle United anytime. I would also be manager and if I was, there are a lot of players at the club who would not be anywhere near SJP. There were lots more pre-1992 though  :winking:

 

Oh and Craig Bellamy would still be there.

 

 

 

Do you think you could do a better job than Roeder NE5?

 

A better job than Souness  :winking:

 

Who would appoint somebody that a member of the public could do a better job than?

 

Liverpool ?

 

 

 

Indeed. Now look where they are. Maybe we will win the CL in a few years then too. After appointing him, did they also appoint a manager plagued with relegation history? Or is that just NUFC?

 

Well, Evans was promoted from the backroom and formed a double act with Houillier. Good planning of course.

 

What do you think of Leeds, Arsenal, Charlton, Birmingham, Southampton, Man City, Leicester, Wolves, Norwich, Ipswich etc all going backwards in the last few years or in recent times ?

 

 

[Guest IrishToon]

Dear god is there any such need for so many quotes? Makes it bloody hard to look at

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

Oh no

[Syrette]

Look how thin it's getting. Such a lovely sight.

[Guest IrishToon]

Stephen Carr should take note